Author
Topic: Thoughts on MDR (Read 1293 times)

They asked about a specific, a cause for divorce? Christ never answered this, rather he redirected them to the original purpose of marriage which was a lifelong union. And since marriage is to be a lifelong union, divorce was for those that were not responsive (hardhearted) to the lifelong purpose and were adultery committers in smaller degrees than typically thought of. In other words, for those who did not regard marriage as permanent, and were likewise reflecting that in their marital relationships, divorce was intended for them.

What he meant and did not mean. First, what he did not mean was that after a person has divorced and then married another he is then committing adultery.

What he meant was that he is presently committing adultery who has it in view or is the process of divorcing his wife, marrying another.

This is a solid viewpoint. I have considered all objections to this and am prepared to answer them.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Matt 19.3 Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?”

Well the text states that they came to him tempting. I guess this means they were trying to get him drawn into a debate or political aspect of some current discussion going on about specific reasons that a man could be justified legally in getting out of his marital obligations to a wife. Christ instead draws their attention to the fact that the relationship was not meant to have an ending point` (other than death, but that was from sin).

So instead of giving them an item, or list of items, for which they could get out from under their responsibilities, he turns and shows them that the reason the process of divorce (which included making the former wife no longer eligible for remarriage to former husband after she married another) was given was due to their stubbornness towards the lifelong arrangement. Then He goes on to tell them that the man that is not being 100% faithful in his obligations is replacing his wife with another. His takeaway message is that a husband (or a wife) is either being committed to their marriage or they are committing adultery,there is no middle ground. You're either in or your out.

Quote

Why did they use that phrase? And what does that phrase tell us about which group of Pharasees they were?

I'm not sure why you're asking this or how it is relevant for the text makes no distinction.

Logged

Christian Forums and Message Board

Of course the text makes no distinction because the Jewish audience that Matthew was writing to was VERY familiar with both houses of Pharisees (Shammai and Hillel) and the decades-old heated debate on this very topic.

The Mishnah records that the dispute boiled down to the meaning of one word: ervah from Deut 24.1. It is rendered "uncleanness" "unseemly thing" or "indecency" in our English versions. Rabbi Shammai believed it mean that if the husband found his wife to not be a virgin on her wedding night and Hillel said if he found anything about her unpleasing, including her repeatedly burning his meals. (i.e. for any reason)

I would submit that this group of Pharisees were trying to see which side of that fence Our Lord came down on. And they were probably from House of Shammai looking for yet another way to criticize him.

And I would further submit that it is important to understand that HIS statement comes down in another place altogether; not the overly strict legalist of Shammai nor the overly liberal Hillel.

Similarly we should not come down on the overly legalistic side of this but we should neither be that lenient either.

You do realize that, contrary to popular parroted rhetoric, Christ is not addressing reason(s) for divorce. Nor is He commenting on the status of new marriages as being continual adultery. He is talking about how the process makes the two dead to each other covenant wise when its exercised to its fullest extent, meaning, when the wife marries another.

In case where a woman was caught in adultery, witnessed by two or more, there would be a stoning of her and the other man.

But what happens when there is no physical act of adultery, yet, either the husband or the wife is not committed to the marriage, when he or she is committing adultery in small degrees? In that case, the bill of divorce and pursuant marriage of the wife makes the two "dead" to each other the same way that a stoning would. Reason: "for that [is] abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance."Deut 24:4

many (that call themselves) believers would not have a biblical argument for that claim.

let us not forget, that you, along with multitudes of your cohorts deny the straightforward understanding of even the simplest of scriptures, such as:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

Millions of souls have repeated with their mouths the lie, changing the definition of adultery from that of:A married woman sleeping with anyone other than her husband (biblical)toA married woman OR man sleeping with anyone other than his or her spouse. (unbiblical)

This latter definition is an invention concocted over thousands of years, having its roots in gnosticism, greek ideology, self-idolatry, and various other false notions.

The latter definition of adultery is the reason why millions of American and European women believe they are Entitled to such and such various things in marriage and are Entitled to a divorce if they don't get it.

God spelled out the basics of marital obligations in Exodus 21:10-12. Those who have changed it have added to the word of God.

Millions of souls have repeated with their mouths the lie, changing the definition of adultery from that of:A married woman sleeping with anyone other than her husband (biblical)toA married woman OR man sleeping with anyone other than his or her spouse. (unbiblical)

This latter definition is an invention concocted over thousands of years, having its roots in gnosticism, greek ideology, self-idolatry, and various other false notions.

No - it is not based in any of that stuff. It is based on a pharisaic-type of misapplication of scripture.

Just as the Pharisees extended all the rules of the Table of the Lord (in the Temple) to each person's home dinner table, (but was to apply ONLY to the Levites and Priests in the Tabernacle/Temple) the early church fathers took the prohibition on congregational leaders having multiple marriages and extended it to everyone.

But here in the west, where that history has established the culture, one husband and one wife is the law of the land and we have to follow it. The only time we can deviate from following the law of the land is if it leads to violating God's laws, and there is no biblical law or command that REQUIRES you to have more than one wife. If you want to bring up leverite marriage, where a brother takes his childless widowed sister in law as his wife (even if he is already married) that can apply ONLY to Jews and ONLY to those Jews living in the Land of Israel. If you look at the reason for it, it was to ensure property inheritance.

That certainly does not apply to gentiles living on a different continent.

Logged

Lively Stone

Millions of souls have repeated with their mouths the lie, changing the definition of adultery from that of:A married woman sleeping with anyone other than her husband (biblical)toA married woman OR man sleeping with anyone other than his or her spouse. (unbiblical)

This latter definition is an invention concocted over thousands of years, having its roots in gnosticism, greek ideology, self-idolatry, and various other false notions.

The latter definition of adultery is the reason why millions of American and European women believe they are Entitled to such and such various things in marriage and are Entitled to a divorce if they don't get it.

God spelled out the basics of marital obligations in Exodus 21:10-12. Those who have changed it have added to the word of God.

What on earth are you talking about?

The Lord God has defined adultery here, and it falls to both men and women.

Leviticus 20:10“If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the man and the woman who have committed adultery must be put to death.

God's laws preempt man's laws. Marriage came first, before there were any man made laws. If the man said you had to be vasectomized, would you do it? I would not and I would not be sinning by resisting.

pfc many believers would consider that you are committing adultery, since you are not the husband of one wife.(Well you are actually, because the second one isnt legally your wife is she)

Where did you get that from?

Pfc has been here for ages on and off. A while back he 'married' another lady, even though he is already married. Thats why I feel I struggle to take anything he says seriosuly, when that major thing is so wrong in his life. I suspect that he is affiliated with the mormon church in some way.

many (that call themselves) believers would not have a biblical argument for that claim.

let us not forget, that you, along with multitudes of your cohorts deny the straightforward understanding of even the simplest of scriptures, such as:And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts 22:16

I understand it when Paul says "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband". I understand it when Jesus says that Gods intention was for a man to leave his mother and Father and cleave to His wife, and become one flesh. You cant become one flesh with 2 different people. I understand when God says "be faithful to the wife of your youth, and let her breasts satisfy you at all times" I understand when the Bible says that those who are faithful to their wife will be blessed with "the rewards of fidelity". I understand when it says that the marriage bed should be kept pure.

God's laws preempt man's laws. Marriage came first, before there were any man made laws. If the man said you had to be vasectomized, would you do it? I would not and I would not be sinning by resisting.

chosenone, you are just throwing a few parts of several scriptures together without even explaining them.

They dont need explaining they are very simple to understand. Besides that we have been through all this before when I quoted scripture, so why do we need to do it again. How hard is it to understand Paul when he says "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband?"

Only to the extent that they conflict. IOW, if man's laws require breaking God's commands then it is entirely proper to follow God and not men.

But as to marriage, there is no command of God REQUIRING multiple marriage partners so if you live in a country where that is illegal; God does not allow it either on the basis of following the law of the land.

What Dave is espousing is wrong in that it is illogical to begin with.

First off, there is no command in general for man to marry even one wife. So, by Dave's reasoning, a country with population control authoritarians could just make it illegal to be married to even one wife. And since there is no NT law DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY commanding marriage, then by Dave's fallacious method, it would be sinful to be married to even one wife. Since there is no God given direct command.

However, God has already stated His desires for mankind. It is that we multiply, be fruitful and to fill the earth and have dominion ....

In some countries like India, there have been mandates requiring vasectomies on the men. Dave would be forced to go along with that because of his methodology.

First off, there is no command in general for man to marry even one wife.

"Be fruitful and multiply." Gen 1.28 The very first command ever given to people. That is not a suggestion, IT IS A COMMAND. And since sex is required for reproduction and is reserved for the marriage covenant, that amounts to a command to get married.

That law was not replaced in the NT so it still stands. It was not given to Jews so it applies to all people.

Quote

In some countries like India, there have been mandates requiring vasectomies on the men. Dave would be forced to go along with that because of his methodology.

Not so. That would be a law that conflicted with fulfilling the command to reproduce.

After you have reproduced, fine. Get the vas. And how many kids did that rule require? We have no scriptural guide but the Sages of the first century bc said 2 kids. Rabbi Hillel said 2 period and Rabbi Shammai said one boy and one girl. (so you keep going until you get one of each)